Rod S Taylor1, Jean-Pierre Van Buyten, Eric Buchser. 1. Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK. r.s.taylor@bham.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the clinical and cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the management of patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and identify the potential predictors of SCS outcome. DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature and meta-regression. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for controlled and uncontrolled studies and economic evaluations relating to the use of SCS in patients with either CRPS type I or II. RESULTS: One randomised controlled trial, 25 case series and one cost-effectiveness study were included. In the randomised controlled trial in type I CRPS patients, SCS therapy lead to a reduction in pain intensity at 24 months of follow-up (mean change in VAS score -2.0), whereas pain was unchanged in the control group (mean change in VAS score 0.0) (p<0.001). In the case series studies, 67% (95% CI 51%, 84%) of type I and type II CRPS patients implanted with SCS reported pain relief of at least 50% over a median follow-up period of 33 months. No statistically significant predictors of pain relief with SCS were observed in multivariate meta-regression analysis across studies. An economic analysis based on the randomised controlled trial showed a lifetime cost saving of approximately 58,470 (60,800 US dollars) with SCS plus physical therapy compared with physical therapy alone. The mean cost per quality-adjusted life-year at 12-month follow-up was 22,580 (23,480 US dollars). CONCLUSIONS: SCS appears to be an effective therapy in the management of patients with CRPS type I (Level A evidence) and type II (Level D evidence). Moreover, there is evidence to demonstrate that SCS is a cost-effective treatment for CRPS type I.
OBJECTIVE: To review the clinical and cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the management of patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and identify the potential predictors of SCS outcome. DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature and meta-regression. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for controlled and uncontrolled studies and economic evaluations relating to the use of SCS in patients with either CRPS type I or II. RESULTS: One randomised controlled trial, 25 case series and one cost-effectiveness study were included. In the randomised controlled trial in type I CRPSpatients, SCS therapy lead to a reduction in pain intensity at 24 months of follow-up (mean change in VAS score -2.0), whereas pain was unchanged in the control group (mean change in VAS score 0.0) (p<0.001). In the case series studies, 67% (95% CI 51%, 84%) of type I and type II CRPSpatients implanted with SCS reported pain relief of at least 50% over a median follow-up period of 33 months. No statistically significant predictors of pain relief with SCS were observed in multivariate meta-regression analysis across studies. An economic analysis based on the randomised controlled trial showed a lifetime cost saving of approximately 58,470 (60,800 US dollars) with SCS plus physical therapy compared with physical therapy alone. The mean cost per quality-adjusted life-year at 12-month follow-up was 22,580 (23,480 US dollars). CONCLUSIONS: SCS appears to be an effective therapy in the management of patients with CRPS type I (Level A evidence) and type II (Level D evidence). Moreover, there is evidence to demonstrate that SCS is a cost-effective treatment for CRPS type I.
Authors: Roberto S Perez; Paul E Zollinger; Pieter U Dijkstra; Ilona L Thomassen-Hilgersom; Wouter W Zuurmond; Kitty Cj Rosenbrand; Jan H Geertzen Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2010-03-31 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Petra Vayne-Bossert; Banafsheh Afsharimani; Phillip Good; Paul Gray; Janet Hardy Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-12-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Shivanand P Lad; Frank W Petraglia; Alexander R Kent; Steven Cook; Kelly R Murphy; Nirav Dalal; Edward Karst; Peter Staats; Ashwini Sharan Journal: Neuromodulation Date: 2016-02-29
Authors: Frank W Petraglia; S Harrison Farber; Robert Gramer; Terence Verla; Frances Wang; Steven Thomas; Beth Parente; Shivanand P Lad Journal: Neuromodulation Date: 2015-12-08
Authors: Kelly Ryan Murphy; Jing L Han; Syed Mohammed Qasim Hussaini; Siyun Yang; Beth Parente; Jichun Xie; Shivanand P Lad Journal: Neuromodulation Date: 2016-10-03